Image of the Day

As a layperson discussing what is largely a legal issue, I am
certainly at a disadvantage in making a case for my patients.
However, I do not see any other health professionals rushing to
the aid of these victims, and I feel obligated to do the best that I
can to assist them with their dilemma. The irony of this
situation is that while I am a physician traversing the legal
universe, the attorneys in this situation have decided to play
doctor and to make decisions based on symptoms that are
significantly less common and less serious than those that
actually exist.
In the letter, Dr. Robichaux said he was frustrated with the medical
testimony that he heard in court on behalf of the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee. He said that the physician advising lawyers from the PSC
seemed to get their information largely over the telephone from other
doctors — but it bore little resemblance to the actual patients he’s treated
along the Gulf.
The result, he argues, is a settlement that not only is unfair to those
seeking medical compensation but in fact creates a false record of what
should be widely acknowledged as a public health crisis in the Gulf. This,
he correctly notes, is a grave injustice. For those who do qualify as
medical claimants, he adds, the proposed compensation is not adequate:
This creates a dilemma for these clients. The maximum
compensation available to them will probably be in the $60,000
range. However, that remains to be seen, as many of these
individuals who are severely affected by this dilemma do not
have the far less significant symptoms that qualify for
compensation.
Another dilemma is the fact that many of these patients will
be affected by their disease for the rest of their lives. How can
$60,000 come even close to compensating these people for an
illness that has completely disrupted their lives and will affect
them for as long as they live?
My friend and legal colleague Robert McKee made similar arguments
to the court objecting to the proposed medical compensation. McKee